channel 4 – Islam21chttps://www.islam21c.com
Articulating Islam in the 21st CenturyThu, 21 Feb 2019 21:12:34 +0000en-GBhourly1147071544Setting the Record Straight – Scandals & Propaganda in 2016https://www.islam21c.com/editorials/setting-the-record-straight-scandals-propaganda-in-2016/
https://www.islam21c.com/editorials/setting-the-record-straight-scandals-propaganda-in-2016/#respondTue, 17 Jan 2017 18:30:42 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=24518Scroll down to see a timeline of some examples of the media and/or state propaganda last year and Islam21c’s attempt at setting the record straight “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with ...

]]>Scroll down to see a timeline of some examples of the media and/or state propaganda last year and Islam21c’s attempt at setting the record straight

“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”[1]

—Noam Chomsky

Among the many blessings that Islam21c is thankful to Allah for, is that it is in the eyes of many a platform for setting the record straight when it comes to scandals concerning prominent Muslims or Islam in the media. The last year in particular has seen a slew of malicious attacks—both coordinated and apparently spontaneous—by some hell-bent on demonising prominent Muslims or grassroots Muslim organising.

Orchestrated attacks

In one fateful weekend alone in January there were over 20 attacks against a number of mainstream Muslim scholars, personalities and organisations. This was a clearly orchestrated attack across several right wing newspapers, which Z A Rahman used to remind us of the ancient propaganda of the Quraysh.[2] It turned out that the coordinated attack was a poor attempt to make something out of the Daily Mail’s four-month investigation into “extremism in Britain,” a witch-hunt trying to stem the tidal wave of opposition to the government’s now toxic counter “extremism” policy, PREVENT, which Ahmed Ali wrote a detailed breakdown of.[3]

Later on that month Channel 4 appeared to try to revive the then-dying (now dead) conveyor belt theory connecting ‘extreme’ beliefs to “terrorism”, in a sensationalist “documentary” Jihadis Next Door. The morning after it was aired Dr Salman Butt summarised why this theory—and the propaganda and policy that flowed from it—was not only empirically flawed but counterproductive.[4] He even posted the controversial question:

Is radicalisation even real?

Are Muslims more than proportionately represented when it comes to political violence? Are there swathes of Muslims running off and joining ISIS? Or have we internalised the same few cherry-picked examples periodically plastered over the front pages of tabloids to support a racist stereotype? I would go so far as to say that we are underrepresented when it comes to our fair share of psychopaths and sociopaths that are prone to such extreme anti-social behaviour.

Psychologists estimate that 1% of the general population is clinically a psychopath,[5] whilst around 4% are sociopaths.[6] If there are three million Muslims in the UK that means we would expect—if we were represented proportionately—120,000 Muslims in the UK to be “completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others,” who “selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret”,[7] according to Professor Robert Hare from the University of British Columbia, a leading expert on sociopaths and psychopaths.[8]

We do not know the number of British Muslims that have gone off to fight for ISIS as this remains a convenient secret held by the state. First we were told tens of thousands of foreign fighters joined ISIS, then the official number became 3000, then 1500, and currently the number stands at 700 who have gone to Syria (note, not necessarily joining ISIS). Whatever the number—and though even one person would be too many—we really must question whether we are giving it the statistical significance it deserves, and whether we should allow any sane, moral adult to get away with spinning it into some kind of underground conspiracy of Muslims being institutionally radicalised en masse.

Are non-Muslims being radicalised?

Shaikh Dr Haitham al-Haddad then posed a similarly thought-provoking question, “Are non-Muslims being radicalised?” looking at responses to Tajikistan taking headscarves off of 1,700 women and shaving 13,000 men’s beards, and the positive attention this story received in western media outlets.[9] Media propaganda in the UK was also challenged when Abdullah Thomson revealed some inconvenient statistics about sexual grooming in Rotherham, painting a very different picture to the panic and hysteria-mongers that tried to spin it as a “Asian” or “Muslim” phenomenon.[10]

Over the last year our brothers and sisters from the Deobandi tradition were also subjected to an unprecedented onslaught of both government and media propaganda and misrepresentation of their beliefs and practises. Mukhtar Master spearheaded series of articles debunking the stereotypes and misinformation presented against “Deobandi Islam”.[11] This coincided with Trevor Phillips’ infamous documentary and survey into “What British Muslims really think”, which Islam21c’s Editor, Ayshah Syed, subjected to a linguistic and cinematic analysis revealing its “propaganda genius”.[12]

Demonising Prominent Muslims

Among the prominent Muslims that were subjected to attempted demonisation last year was Ustadh Ali Hammuda, on whom the Daily did a horrendous hatchet job on. We were honoured to host his official public response, “No, Daily Mail, you CAN’T have sex slaves,”[13] where he highlighted the utter nonsense and audacity of demonising a Muslim speaker for essentially reading from Imam al-Nawawi’s ubiquitous forty hadith compilation!

Additionally a prominent Hindu scholar from India also revealed some of the nuance and politics of the demonisation of Dr Zakir Naik last year, as part of a broader Islamophobic campaign there to stem the immense amount of truth being disseminated by his organisation all over the world.[14]

Another prominent Muslim who was smeared last year was Shaikh Sulaiman Gani who was smeared by the Prime Minister David Cameron himself![15] As part of Zac Goldsmith’s abhorrent campaign for London Mayor, Cameron accused Sh Gani of supporting “Islamic State.” We then published a joint statement by Imams defending him and calling for David Cameron to apologise,[16] which—by the Grace of Allah and a coherent community effort—led to an apology being issued in Parliament by Cameron, who said what he meant was that Sh Gani supported “an” Islamic state. Journalist Dilly Hussain then asked, Is David Cameron OK with “an” Islamic State then?[17]

As el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz rahimahullah (formerly known as Malcolm X) once remarked about the media,

“They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

If the last few years have shown us anything, it is that the traditional model of the western media as in the service of oppressive power, is undergoing unprecedented change due to advances in the internet and communications technology. Although these do not come without their own problems, all of us are both honoured and expected to play our respective parts in the promotion of the truth and facts going into the future. As long as there are those who provoke fear and paranoia regarding orthodox Islam and Muslims, in order to keep society in a state of disempowerment and distraction, there will—God willing—always be people to provide a counter voice to empower those willing to listen and learn.

Scroll down to see a timeline of some examples of the media and/or state propaganda last year and Islam21c’s attempt at setting the record straight

Just this weekend, we have seen more than 20 articles, some of which are deserving of front page coverage by the right-wing press. These newspapers appear to have waged an orchestrated and relentless campaign against Muslim dissenters; including Muslim organisations, major and mainstream Muslim scholars, activists and personalities. Selective and out-of-context quoting of Muslims, unfounded .....Read More

Daily Mail Propoganda: Smokescreen & Mirrors The right-wing media schooled us well in propaganda and how to instigate a witch-hunt over the last seven days. The Daily Mail’s “4 month investigation of extremism in Britain” was much to do about nothing. All in all, what comprised of the string of “exposé” articles were repeated lies, .....Read More

Jihadis under your bed Last night’s shocking Channel 4 documentary reminded me of the age-old relationship between opinion-formers and power. From Biblical Pharaohs and Roman Emperors to the modern nation state, there have always been some ideologists in the service of the ruling elite, propagating their necessary myths, eulogising their policies, and demonising their perceived .....Read More

In the Name of Allah, Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger Muhammad. Imagine, for a moment, that a Muslim country forced women to wear hijābs or prevented men from shaving their beards. How would western media corporations react? Anyone remotely familiar with our press can almost hear the .....Read More

Rotherham grooming. We really should have read the Jay Report. This week three brothers were given a 19 to 35 year imprisonment sentence for their abhorrent abuse of vulnerable young girls in Rotherham. A sensitive topic, and one that in no way detracts from the stories of the victims, is concern over the huge damage .....Read More

Suspicion is forbidden in Islām, however the irony is that under the Government’s Prevent, counter terrorism strategy, all Muslims are themselves under suspicion. Not even little four year old children at nursery are exempt, as demonstrated by the recent ‘cooker bomb’ incident, which was deemed as a sign of obvious radicalisation.[1] It beggars belief that .....Read More

BBC Radio 4 – The Deobandis (Part 1) – The Response Click here for part 2 I love a good drama. After much hype and social media chatter, I settled down to listen to the first of a two-part series on Radio 4, ‘The Deobandis’.[1] I listened intently and was engrossed from the beginning. In fact, .....Read More

On Wednesday night Channel 4 documentaries aired “What British Muslims Really Think”. According to the host, Trevor Phillips, it is a unique new survey [which] reveals how British Muslims really think. And I can honestly say it was a treat. There is so much that can be said about this thinly veiled call to arms against .....Read More

You’re Having A Laugh Click here for part 1 It was with baited breath and eager anticipation that I awaited the main course of a two-part BBC Radio 4 programme entitled the ‘The Deobandis’.[1] Last week’s starter was not at all appetising to the 600,000 so-called ‘Deobandis’ in the UK.[2] In fact, based on reviews since the programme has .....Read More

O my fellow people of Britain, lend me your ears. There is a secret army of 640,000 plus strong amassing its ranks against you. It is unlike anything you have ever seen before having infiltrated every walk of life. An army made of doctors, lawyers, civil servants, postal workers, teachers, hairdressers and engineers all supporting .....Read More

How a south London Imām found himself at the centre of British politics The last few days have seen a turn for the worse in the Tory campaign for London Mayor. The unsavoury tactics started quite early on when Zac Goldsmith’s campaign team started a slew of guilty-by-association arguments against Labour’s Sadiq Khan. They combed .....Read More

Editors Note; If you are an Imam or Scholar and would like to add your name to the statement of support please leave a comment below All praises be to Allāh and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. On Wednesday 20th April 2016, the British Prime Minister stood .....Read More

It is easy to forget with the domination of the EU referendum in current political debate that there are a number of elections that will take place in May, ahead of the plebiscite in June, which are no less important or interesting. It is perhaps something readers here would much rather forget given the disparaging .....Read More

To Listen to the Podcast click play in the player above For those who are yet to vote, not sure whether they want to or are sitting on the fence undecided on who to choose here is a short Podcast interview that may help. Join Dr Salman Butt in conversation with Azad Ali, Sh Haitham al-Haddad .....Read More

Since London woke up to confirmation of a resounding win for Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Elections, another campaign of blame apportioning in the Conservative Party seems to be underway. The “blame game” for the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s defeat began before the final vote count at London’s City Hall had even been announced. .....Read More

On Wednesday 20 April 2016, David Cameron defamed Imām Sulaiman Ghani from Tooting at Prime Minister’s Questions as an “IS supporter” – a popular acronym for ISIS.[1] Downing Street’s Press Office later clarified that Mr Cameron really meant Imām Ghani supported “an” Islamic state.[2] The basis of this claim, Downing Street argued, was the ‘Quiz a .....Read More

Hindu scholar from India speaks out against the Islamophobic campaign against Dr Zakir Naik Ever since a Bangladeshi newspaper reported that Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik “inspired” Dhaka militants, a new frenzy of Islamophobic discourse has begun in India. The Modi Government was quick to grab this opportunity of Muslim-bashing. Home Minister Rajnath Singh asserted that .....Read More

Wrapped in velvet, placed on the highest shelf, perfumed and honoured, the Qur’an has a special place in every Muslim’s heart. The Qur’an is the uncreated speech of the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord and Master of Mankind, the Creator of the Heavens and Earth. Once this is appreciated it will cause an earthquake .....Read More

Bismillah, wal-hamdu lillah, wa al-salatu wa al-salamu ‘ala rasulillah All media outlets are not the same – the Daily Mail is a special kind of ignorant Two years ago a spy was caught going around our mosque in Wales. He had been filming secretly, harassing young boys with very personal questions and scaring them, and he .....Read More

I have always keenly examined the psychology of the ‘Ex-Muslim’ phenomenon so I was intrigued to hear of ITV’s documentary on ‘Ex-Muslims’ on Thursday night. However, within minutes I soon disappointingly realised that it was a missed opportunity for a meaningful, nuanced treatment of the topic, and instead a very worrying presentation of carefully decontextualised .....Read More

Imam Shakeel Begg of Lewisham Mosque, London, recently lost his case for libel against the BBC. Firstly, I would like to say that I wish to express my support for Imam Shakeel. He is a model imam who works diligently for his community in keeping with his Islamic principles. He has done excellent work in .....Read More

UNESCO Resolution on Temple Mount: Alleged Denial of ‘Jewish Links’- Only a Media Spin! The UNESCO Resolution on “Occupied Palestine” was endorsed recently by its Executive Board which comprised of representatives from 58 states. It was approved by 24 votes to 6, with 26 abstentions and two absentees. And, already, it has raised a hornet’s .....Read More

Source: www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

Just this weekend, we have seen more than 20 articles, some of which are deserving of front page coverage by the right-wing press. These newspapers appear to have waged an orchestrated and relentless campaign against Muslim dissenters; including Muslim organisations, major and mainstream Muslim scholars, activists and personalities. Selective and out-of-context quoting of Muslims, unfounded .....Read More

Daily Mail Propoganda: Smokescreen & Mirrors The right-wing media schooled us well in propaganda and how to instigate a witch-hunt over the last seven days. The Daily Mail’s “4 month investigation of extremism in Britain” was much to do about nothing. All in all, what comprised of the string of “exposé” articles were repeated lies, .....Read More

Jihadis under your bed Last night’s shocking Channel 4 documentary reminded me of the age-old relationship between opinion-formers and power. From Biblical Pharaohs and Roman Emperors to the modern nation state, there have always been some ideologists in the service of the ruling elite, propagating their necessary myths, eulogising their policies, and demonising their perceived .....Read More

In the Name of Allah, Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger Muhammad. Imagine, for a moment, that a Muslim country forced women to wear hijābs or prevented men from shaving their beards. How would western media corporations react? Anyone remotely familiar with our press can almost hear the .....Read More

Rotherham grooming. We really should have read the Jay Report. This week three brothers were given a 19 to 35 year imprisonment sentence for their abhorrent abuse of vulnerable young girls in Rotherham. A sensitive topic, and one that in no way detracts from the stories of the victims, is concern over the huge damage .....Read More

Suspicion is forbidden in Islām, however the irony is that under the Government’s Prevent, counter terrorism strategy, all Muslims are themselves under suspicion. Not even little four year old children at nursery are exempt, as demonstrated by the recent ‘cooker bomb’ incident, which was deemed as a sign of obvious radicalisation.[1] It beggars belief that .....Read More

BBC Radio 4 – The Deobandis (Part 1) – The Response Click here for part 2 I love a good drama. After much hype and social media chatter, I settled down to listen to the first of a two-part series on Radio 4, ‘The Deobandis’.[1] I listened intently and was engrossed from the beginning. In fact, .....Read More

On Wednesday night Channel 4 documentaries aired “What British Muslims Really Think”. According to the host, Trevor Phillips, it is a unique new survey [which] reveals how British Muslims really think. And I can honestly say it was a treat. There is so much that can be said about this thinly veiled call to arms against .....Read More

You’re Having A Laugh Click here for part 1 It was with baited breath and eager anticipation that I awaited the main course of a two-part BBC Radio 4 programme entitled the ‘The Deobandis’.[1] Last week’s starter was not at all appetising to the 600,000 so-called ‘Deobandis’ in the UK.[2] In fact, based on reviews since the programme has .....Read More

O my fellow people of Britain, lend me your ears. There is a secret army of 640,000 plus strong amassing its ranks against you. It is unlike anything you have ever seen before having infiltrated every walk of life. An army made of doctors, lawyers, civil servants, postal workers, teachers, hairdressers and engineers all supporting .....Read More

How a south London Imām found himself at the centre of British politics The last few days have seen a turn for the worse in the Tory campaign for London Mayor. The unsavoury tactics started quite early on when Zac Goldsmith’s campaign team started a slew of guilty-by-association arguments against Labour’s Sadiq Khan. They combed .....Read More

Editors Note; If you are an Imam or Scholar and would like to add your name to the statement of support please leave a comment below All praises be to Allāh and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. On Wednesday 20th April 2016, the British Prime Minister stood .....Read More

It is easy to forget with the domination of the EU referendum in current political debate that there are a number of elections that will take place in May, ahead of the plebiscite in June, which are no less important or interesting. It is perhaps something readers here would much rather forget given the disparaging .....Read More

To Listen to the Podcast click play in the player above For those who are yet to vote, not sure whether they want to or are sitting on the fence undecided on who to choose here is a short Podcast interview that may help. Join Dr Salman Butt in conversation with Azad Ali, Sh Haitham al-Haddad .....Read More

Since London woke up to confirmation of a resounding win for Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Elections, another campaign of blame apportioning in the Conservative Party seems to be underway. The “blame game” for the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s defeat began before the final vote count at London’s City Hall had even been announced. .....Read More

On Wednesday 20 April 2016, David Cameron defamed Imām Sulaiman Ghani from Tooting at Prime Minister’s Questions as an “IS supporter” – a popular acronym for ISIS.[1] Downing Street’s Press Office later clarified that Mr Cameron really meant Imām Ghani supported “an” Islamic state.[2] The basis of this claim, Downing Street argued, was the ‘Quiz a .....Read More

Hindu scholar from India speaks out against the Islamophobic campaign against Dr Zakir Naik Ever since a Bangladeshi newspaper reported that Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik “inspired” Dhaka militants, a new frenzy of Islamophobic discourse has begun in India. The Modi Government was quick to grab this opportunity of Muslim-bashing. Home Minister Rajnath Singh asserted that .....Read More

Wrapped in velvet, placed on the highest shelf, perfumed and honoured, the Qur’an has a special place in every Muslim’s heart. The Qur’an is the uncreated speech of the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord and Master of Mankind, the Creator of the Heavens and Earth. Once this is appreciated it will cause an earthquake .....Read More

Bismillah, wal-hamdu lillah, wa al-salatu wa al-salamu ‘ala rasulillah All media outlets are not the same – the Daily Mail is a special kind of ignorant Two years ago a spy was caught going around our mosque in Wales. He had been filming secretly, harassing young boys with very personal questions and scaring them, and he .....Read More

I have always keenly examined the psychology of the ‘Ex-Muslim’ phenomenon so I was intrigued to hear of ITV’s documentary on ‘Ex-Muslims’ on Thursday night. However, within minutes I soon disappointingly realised that it was a missed opportunity for a meaningful, nuanced treatment of the topic, and instead a very worrying presentation of carefully decontextualised .....Read More

Imam Shakeel Begg of Lewisham Mosque, London, recently lost his case for libel against the BBC. Firstly, I would like to say that I wish to express my support for Imam Shakeel. He is a model imam who works diligently for his community in keeping with his Islamic principles. He has done excellent work in .....Read More

UNESCO Resolution on Temple Mount: Alleged Denial of ‘Jewish Links’- Only a Media Spin! The UNESCO Resolution on “Occupied Palestine” was endorsed recently by its Executive Board which comprised of representatives from 58 states. It was approved by 24 votes to 6, with 26 abstentions and two absentees. And, already, it has raised a hornet’s .....Read More

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/editorials/setting-the-record-straight-scandals-propaganda-in-2016/feed/024518The Propaganda Genius of “What British Muslims Really Think”https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-propaganda-genius-of-what-british-muslims-really-think/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-propaganda-genius-of-what-british-muslims-really-think/#commentsThu, 14 Apr 2016 19:00:31 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=21258On Wednesday night Channel 4 documentaries aired “What British Muslims Really Think”. According to the host, Trevor Phillips, it is a unique new survey [which] reveals how British Muslims really think. And I can honestly say it was a treat. There is so much that can be said about this thinly veiled call to arms against ...

]]>On Wednesday night Channel 4 documentaries aired “What British Muslims Really Think”. According to the host, Trevor Phillips, it is a unique new survey [which] reveals how British Muslims really think. And I can honestly say it was a treat. There is so much that can be said about this thinly veiled call to arms against British Muslims and so much to comment on the political implications, criticisms on methodology of collecting findings, problems with sourcing etc. But that can be found in numerous other articles written by a great many political voices across a great many organisations.[1][2]

For me though, as I sat there aghast, watching this appalling and gross abuse of media power, my mind was reeling from the craftsmanship at work here. Maybe because the literary realm and the power of words is my field, or maybe because of my affinity for Tafsīr (the careful analysis of words, meaning and context), or maybe because it was blatantly obvious, I saw before me an artistic piece rich with persuasive conventions, suggestive language, rhetorical techniques, sensory devices and strategic cinematography all efficiently – oh so efficiently, no second to waste; no words allowed that didn’t pull their weight – pushing an agenda of moral panic, fear mongering, and purposeful damage to social and community cohesion, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices about Muslim communities.[3]

As such, when the editorial team asked if I wanted to write a response to the documentary, I pitched my angle – I asked to go right back to my university days as this should have been shown then, this was exactly what we should have studied. This was a lesson on using language, structure and tone to create a world of pure imagination, persuading the audience it was true, and rallying troops for a daunting end.

Language

On Wednesday night we shared an article from the Guardian newspaper. Its opening lines were:

“What do British Muslims really think? That’s what Trevor Phillips asks in a Channel 4 documentary later this week. It reminds me of the question that I and many other Brits of colour are often asked: “But where are you really from?”

The documentary was littered with such phrases. Under a guise of curiosity or innocent speculation, the constant suggestive statements slowly but persistently nudged the audience into adopting suspicion, fear and even anger over the growing “Mozlem Epidemic”.[4]

It begins.

“Just over 10 years ago … terror struck Britain. None of the bombers survived, but the menace they posed did not perish with them. […] It’s the extremist adherents of one particular faith, Islam, who have created a major fault-line in this country. […] Until now experts, community leaders and politicians of all stripes have tried to reassure the public that extremist views are held only by a tiny minority of British Muslims.”

As the introductory message, riddled with negative, fear-inducing lexis, is set forth, Phillips leaves the viewers with a hankering suspicion that they may be wrong; that the truth of the matter is that this is not in fact the case. Just as we would say ‘You may think it’s easy, but…’ or ‘She seemed really nice on the phone, but…’ or ‘I know the food looks nice, but…’ to begin an alleged expository documentary with a statement such as this sets a standard of expectation to the contrary; that initial beliefs have been flawed; that everyone has ‘tried’ to reassure the public that only a ‘tiny minority’ of British Muslims have extreme views but the fact of the matter is that the ‘terror [that has] struck Britain’ stems from ‘adherents from one particular faith, Islām’. We are now 1 minute into the documentary. Just another 46 minutes of this masterpiece to go.

We then have David Cameron, our Prime Minister, the leader of this nation, in his famous speech offering support to those ‘reforming, moderate voices’ that want to ‘reclaim their religion’. And then Phillips asks:

‘But is David Cameron right to say that most British Muslims share the same values as non-Muslims? And do they reject extremism and violent action in the same way as the whole of British society?’

I would never have thought that to question something David Cameron had said would be to paint Muslims in an even worse light. Apparently I was wrong. Phillips’ leading question here, typical of persuasive and suggestive speech, a question that would be entirely inadmissible as an interrogative question for its implied answer, tells the viewer the answer to expect. “No. Cameron is not right. No. British Muslims do not share the same values. No. They do not reject extremism and violent action. No. They are not the same as the whole of British society.” Already, in 1 minute 30 seconds, Phillips has succinctly and effectively drawn a dividing line between British Muslims and ‘the whole of British society’; he has perpetuated an ‘us and them’ belief.

As if to demonstrate his credentials and the subsequent credibility of the documentary he gives us a touching story of how his work has contributed to the invention of the word ‘Islamophobia’ and how he therefore must be an objective, honest, unbiased, observer, here to deliver facts on ‘the results of a unique new survey [which] reveal how British Muslims themselves answer these questions’.

‘Our findings will shock many’, he says. In other words, in case you couldn’t guess from my leading question: David Cameron is wrong. He suggests that this survey illustrates the ‘looming threat to our very way of life’. A survey on the opinion of British Muslims bears the signs of a looming threat to our very way of life. Looming. Threat. Were a viewer to turn away at any point in this documentary they would have been fed negativity after negativity, fear upon fear, and suspicion against their fellow British Muslims. From the outset, this documentary has a single purpose, and it is committed to fulfilling it. Bear in mind, we do not yet know the findings and we are exactly 2 minutes in.

As much as I would like to, I will not give a second by second account of this documentary. Suffice to say: through use of language and linguistic techniques, through emphasis, through effective pauses, through the very choice of words, Phillips portrays an image of a villainous, threatening band of terrorists living among us.

The best horror film begins on a presumption of normalcy: an ordinary home, a nice street, friendly neighbours. It is when this is inverted and subverted that we feel the most fear. You would expect to find horror at a haunted house, so what you get was coming to you. But the poor unsuspecting citizen going about their daily business who is suddenly ambushed by their butchers, bakers and candlestick makers they had known all their life is all the more pitiable. This is what Phillips ultimately warns the viewers of.

We are quite literally introduced to local butchers in South London while Phillips narrates that this survey gave a true depiction of what Muslims think because most non-Muslims only meet Muslims at work or out shopping. The poor butchers explained how they had been working there for years and always laughed and joked with their multi-racial customers, only to have Phillips swiftly add:

“But this isn’t exactly the encounter where people share their innermost thoughts.”

Read: this survey is true because what your Muslim colleagues or servicemen tell you are lies, the enemy lives among you. These friendly butchers aren’t sharing their innermost thoughts.

‘One place ICM researchers visited is Luton. The 2011 census records some 50,000 Muslims living here.’

The correct, and almost natural, manner in constructing this sentence is as follows:

“One place ICM researchers visited is Luton. The 2011 census records some 50,000 Muslims living there.”

His reference to Luton was distanced. It therefore follows that his use of indicative noun should also be the distanced ‘there’. However he opts for ‘here’. Why? As an isolated occasion, this means nothing. But following the ‘looming’ ‘threat’ of deceiving Muslims, the word ‘here’ serves to create a sense of imminence and proximity. They. are. here. Fifty thousand of them. Here. Give no chance to non-residents of Luton feeling safe thinking “at least those terrible people are over there”. No. Wherever you are, if you are watching this, they are ‘here’ in your vicinity.

He assures the viewers he knows ‘good’ British Muslims exist and gives a cursory nod at Nadia Hussain before immediately cutting to a forbidding and terrifying memory of a great tragedy in Britain, the culprits of which came from ‘just fifteen minutes away’. Again, imminence and proximity.

Not what they say, not what they claim to be like, but what they really think, what they are really like. Continually drawing parallels with the good exterior and the contrasting evil reality.

Nadia vs. Terrorists.

What British Muslims say vs. What British Muslims think.

Good vs. Evil.

Solely the depiction of statistics on beliefs held by British Muslims regarding homosexuality, suicide bombing, violence, attitudes towards women, perpetuated this notion. Figures such as the 4% of British Muslims who demonstrated some form of sympathy to ‘sensitive matters’ were put on centre stage. The same clip was replayed of Martin Boon, Director of ICM saying

“That implies that just over 100,000 Muslims in the United Kingdom have some form of sympathy with violent acts.”

I wonder what the question was for 100,000 Muslims to have allowed themselves to be depicted as such barbarians.

I would like to focus on what the statistics were. 4% of British Muslims vs. 1% of the rest. That is 99% of the whole population have no sympathy for violent acts and 96% of British Muslims have no sympathy for violent acts. Stop the presses. We have a looming threat. Whereas the 1% of the whole population is described as ‘just a handful’ the 4% are given a substantive figure of 100,000. If we are talking figures, I would like figures. If we are talking handfuls, then that’s 4 handfuls of British Muslims with dodgy views.

“Britain’s political elite, both left and right, have preferred to believe that only a very small number of Britain’s Muslims sympathise with Islamist terrorism”, Phillips says in an almost mocking tone. Oh these children, believing things again, are we? “The survey suggests otherwise.”

– “Preferred to believe” i.e. blind faith, head in the sand, not facing facts.

– “only a very small number” i.e. “The survey says!” wrong.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

“The survey also suggests that everyone who has pinned their hopes on the rise of liberal and reforming British Muslim voices is in for a disappointment. Those voices are nowhere near as influential or as numerous as they need to be to make an impact.”

Disheartening words. Not just for the non-Muslim viewership but for the Muslims who spend every day working hard to dispel the myth of a brutal Islām, who work hard every day to demonstrate the beauty of Islām, who step outside identifiably Muslim living to be an example of the truth of Islām.

As mentioned earlier. I am not here to contest the accuracy of results or methodology. I write as a viewer and of the destruction this programme caused to a fractured community, of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, which is trying to build a society of cohesion and unity. To trust one another and believe the best in one another. What has happened with the ‘keep calm and carry on’ attitude?[5] What has happened to ‘united we stand, divided we fall’? This programme is a shame to those quintessential values made famous by legends. Every word of this documentary fuelled a fire that people toil every day to put out. Every word created fear of the other. Every word created a ‘chasm’ amongst the British.

If you watched this and came away with a negative perception of your British Muslim neighbours, watch it again. This time look out for the narrative being pushed. I have only covered 10 minutes of the documentary. There is so much more to be said.

“Words are powerful forces of nature/ they are destruction/ they are nourishment.”

It is evident which Trevor Phillips chose.

Cinematography

The directors of this documentary must have had fun. They tried their hand at an eerie reconstruction straight out of Watchdog. I can honestly say I feared for the lady’s life and well-being as she walked in a suspect part of the neighbourhood. She is filmed from a shaky-cam perspective as if she were the target of some perversion or murderous intent. She knocks on a door. A man opens it and lets her in. Don’t go in! I want to scream. She walks into a Dickensian setting. It is a dim, unsettling, uninhabited shack of a home. Paint peels off the walls and banisters. He ushers her into the back of the house. She timidly asks if she can ask him some questions. He never speaks. He only ever stares.

This is the only Muslim interviewee the viewers see. Thank you directors, for that choice selection of cast and setting to represent every British Muslim interviewed. Every piece of data you mention will be associated with this gentleman who lives in a bleak house. Even were every word said about Muslims in this documentary positive and comforting or indeed encouraging, it would be shattered by the image of this suspicious man plastered in every person’s mind.

Other spells of genius include a voice over of:

– “underneath these surface attitudes the trends are far less encouraging for those who believe in integration” accompanying an image of said Muslim man.

– “Muslims incorrectly or erroneously conflating what’s happening in Israel-Palestine with Jewish people who have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine or Zionism” accompanying an image of a bearded elder gentleman walking in Britain.

– “What if that framework (Qur’ānic guidance) collides with the values of wider society?” accompanying an image of a mosque in Britain.

– “the kinds of [terrible, abhorrent, violent, asocial] attitudes revealed by our survey” accompanying an image of men praying in congregation in a mosque.

– “I […] just got the aspirations of British Muslims wrong” accompanying an image of a mosque.

– “There is a problem with this live and let live, laissez faire, approach. Our survey revealed the more people hankered after a separate life the more sympathetic they were to violence and extremism.” following a scene of a Muslim father, mother and children walking on the streets of Britain.

– “Attitudes to violence” accompanying an image of Mr Muslim Man

– “The survey is showing us the emergences of […] a nation within the nation, where many hold different values of behaviour from the majority” accompanying a shot of a marketplace frequented by Muslim shoppers.

Quite unashamedly, the Editors attribute these negative stereotypes to images of the average, every day Muslim. They conflate extreme, violent and intolerant views with what is identifiably Muslim and in so doing push to indoctrinate the minds of the viewers to believe as such too.

Structure

The documentary “What British Muslims Really Think” has proven itself an example of expert movie making. When I was 12 years old learning about Nazi propaganda and its power over the German people, I could not understand how people could be so foolish to be sucked in by what leaflets said, what emissions said, what people said about their fellow citizens and how people could possibly act upon such propaganda to commit heinous acts of ethnic cleansing against the Jewish people. This documentary is exactly that, and the people who are taken in by Trevor Phillips’ words are not as foolish as the 12 year old me thought. They are trusting of what they believe is unbiased reporting for the benefit of their community. Documentaries such as this propagate an ideology of hate and intolerance towards ordinary citizens and they encourage a militia-mentality in British citizens against their fellow Muslim Britons.

After almost an hour of subliminal messages, not-so-subtle discrimination and incessant fear-mongering, Phillips reviews the threat to Britain. “There are now more than 3 million Muslims in Britain […] Britain faces a huge challenge.” He asks: “What are we going to do about it?”

He goes on to say,

“This is not just the responsibility of the government. To stand a chance of success the whole of Britain have to set aside the live and let live philosophy […] and reassert liberal values […We could close our eyes and hope that our problems will vanish] or we could seize the initiative.”

The following words brought a chill to my bones:

‘If anything the Prime Minister’s plans just don’t go far enough. The evidence tells me that we need a much more muscular approach.”

Thank you for encouraging EDL Jack and Racist Jill to take matters into their own hands and do away with the live and let live philosophy. Thank you for pushing out an hour long documentary on the evils of what you believe Muslims think ‘beneath the surface’ and for concluding that our already fearful neighbours need to take a much more muscular approach. For a moment I feared for all my family members and all the innocent and vulnerable Muslims whom your words will have an impact on.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-propaganda-genius-of-what-british-muslims-really-think/feed/2021258Response to Ch 4’s “Jihadis Next Door”https://www.islam21c.com/politics/response-to-ch-4s-jihadis-next-door/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/response-to-ch-4s-jihadis-next-door/#commentsWed, 20 Jan 2016 21:37:48 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=20352Jihadis under your bed Last night’s shocking Channel 4 documentary reminded me of the age-old relationship between opinion-formers and power. From Biblical Pharaohs and Roman Emperors to the modern nation state, there have always been some ideologists in the service of the ruling elite, propagating their necessary myths, eulogising their policies, and demonising their perceived ...

Last night’s shocking Channel 4 documentary reminded me of the age-old relationship between opinion-formers and power. From Biblical Pharaohs and Roman Emperors to the modern nation state, there have always been some ideologists in the service of the ruling elite, propagating their necessary myths, eulogising their policies, and demonising their perceived threats. Whilst I try my best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I found myself running out of excuses for this particular production. At worst, it was a shocking service to power on the eve of more restrictions on civil liberties in the form of the imminent ‘counter-extremism’ measures. At best, it was a conviction-driven, horribly-timed, coincidence.[1]

As the first few minutes unfolded, and the heads of countless learned activists slowly seeped into their hands, I predicted the rest to be a thinly veiled promotion of state doctrines; namely, the purported connection between dissent and political violence. Whether it was intended or accidental, I was upset that my prediction came true – to some extent. The entire film was a one-sided, 46-minute manifesto for the academically-refuted doctrine that the presenter ended with, which was lapped up and repeated by other right-wing journalists elsewhere:

“It’s clear that the connection between non-violent extremism and terrorism is absolute. It seems to me that it’s a vital link required to create a terrorist executioner.”[2]

And there it is: that superstitious myth that has been refuted comprehensively by the annoying tedium of evidence-based enquiry. Forget the last 30 years’ empirical studies on people actually involved in “terrorism”. All you need to reinforce this, or indeed any superstitious or bigoted narrative, is a carefully cherry-picked example of a person who happens to be classified as a ‘non-violent extremist’ somehow ending up in ISIS. Then, studiously avoid any specimens that refute the stereotype or give an indication of the statistical insignificance. Now you can draw over-generalised, grandiose pronouncements about a large group of people to your heart’s content, from Muslims to socialists to Black activists to anti-fracking demonstrators.

The Imaginary Conveyor Belt

John Horgan, director of the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University, comments that:

“The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research … [First], the overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And second, there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don’t necessarily hold radical beliefs.”[3]

Anyone aware of the basics of the scientific method would identify those as being crucial control measurements required to suggest any valid correlation—let alone causation—between “radicalisation” and “terrorism”.

Other than it being well-established fiction, this narrative that non-violent “extremism” leads to “terrorism” is poisonous for many reasons, some of which have been seen in the bigoted and outright racist reactions on social media. As researcher Marc Sageman (formerly of the CIA) stated, this propaganda is,

“the same nonsense that led governments a hundred years ago to claim that left-wing political protests led to violent anarchy.”[4]

It is also the same excuse authoritarian regimes have used for decades to swell state power and restrict civil liberties and dissent. This is exemplified by the infamous, and partly illegal, COINTELPRO operation led by the FBI to manipulate and disrupt social and political movements in the USA in the 1960s. Democracy Now! has extensive coverage on it and its aftermath.[5] As Professor Arun Kundnani explains regarding the fictitious strands of modern radicalisation theory:

“[O]ne of the consequences of adopting these models is that if you think that ideology is the root cause of terrorism, then you’re going to look for expressions of ideology as your indicators, that give you this predictive power that law enforcement agencies obviously ought to have in order to intervene at an early stage. So you start to look for indictors that are to do with someone’s religious and political opinions, which are the expressions of the ideology, or things like changes in the kind of clothing that they wear, or growing a beard. These are the ways in which supposedly this ideology is being expressed and that’s why you then end up with a situation where you say, “Okay we want to make sure that we have such an intense level of surveillance in the community that we believe has this problem—i.e. Muslims in the United States—we want to have such a high level of surveillance of that population that we can know when someone is displaying these indicators of political and religious opinion.” And that’s what we’ve seen happen.”[6]

Then comes the insidious part. There are, of course, many rational people without access to actual data who naturally wish to distinguish themselves from the bigoted far-right or neocon statements blaming Islām or the general Muslim community for the likes of ISIS. However, with the way the current propaganda is framed, instead of being permitted to challenge the fundamentally flawed basis (that non-violent radical beliefs cause “terrorism”), most rational and moral people are pushed to endorse it and can merely declare most Muslims as being nice, peaceful moderates. It is only the “extreme” ones that give the rest a bad name.

Whilst their intentions may be commendable, when they declare that ISIS is a ‘perversion of Islām’, and those who support their ‘twisted ideology misinterpret the Qur’ān’—which is factually correct—it is problematic if they fail to challenge the dangerous myth that the ideology or misreading of the Qur’ān they condemn is what takes an otherwise ‘normal’ individual and pushes them towards political violence, in the first place. In other words, they are still blaming ideology instead of the host of actual, empirically-determined, causes of political violence, and perpetuating the same dangerous consequences as the rhetoric of the right-wing bigots.

It is even more problematic when some Muslims absorb such stereotypes about their own identity, such as their religion having the propensity to cause terrorism if merely misinterpreted. It is indeed often easier to convince a non-Muslim of the fallacy of correlating non-violent ‘extremism’ with terrorism than it is to overturn some Muslims’ mental conditioning involving the myths surrounding ‘radicalisation’. Years of Islamophobic battering has taken its toll on the Muslim mind, rendering most of us automatically defensive and apologetic when it comes to “terrorism”, with very few people actually questioning statistical significance.

Is radicalisation even real?

Are Muslims more than proportionately represented when it comes to political violence? Are there swathes of Muslims running off and joining ISIS? Or have we internalised the same few cherry-picked examples periodically plastered over the front pages of tabloids to support a racist stereotype? I would go so far as to say that we are underrepresented when it comes to our fair share of psychopaths and sociopaths that are prone to such extreme anti-social behaviour.

Psychologists estimate that 1% of the general population is clinically a psychopath,[7] whilst around 4% are sociopaths.[8] If there are three million Muslims in the UK that means we would expect—if we were represented proportionately—120,000 Muslims in the UK to be “completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others,” who “selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret”,[9] according to Professor Robert Hare from the University of British Columbia, a leading expert on sociopaths and psychopaths.[10]

We do not know the number of British Muslims that have gone off to fight for ISIS as this remains a convenient secret held by the state. First we were told tens of thousands of foreign fighters joined ISIS, then the official number became 3000, then 1500, and currently the number stands at 700 who have gone to Syria (note, not necessarily joining ISIS). Whatever the number—and though even one person would be too many—we really must question whether we are giving it the statistical significance it deserves, and whether we should allow any sane, moral adult to get away with spinning it into some kind of underground conspiracy of Muslims being institutionally radicalised en masse.

“How can you say ideology doesn’t matter when they use ideology to justify their actions?”

Many people may ask variations of the above question, since the overt displays of Islamic identity and practice is highlighted frequently by those wishing to push the fictitious radicalisation theory. The answer is in the question itself: they use their ideology to justify their actions. There is a world of difference between a cause for something and a post-facto justification. If somebody dedicated to evidence-based enquiry without an agenda watched last night’s documentary carefully, it is likely that they would have come to precisely the opposite conclusion to what was presented.

They saw disturbed young men with obvious sociopathic (if not psychopathic) tendencies and disregard for social norms, with the only mention of Islamic terminology being in justifications for already-made decisions. One of the interviewees revealingly said about an Australian boy whom he had been accused of radicalising:

“He asked me if it’s ok to behead someone. I said no. So he asked someone else.”

The programme’s propagated doctrine would suggest that it is a person’s “Radical Islām” or “extremism” that would lead to a “terrorist execution”. However here is a clear example of a supposed “hate preacher” essentially being asked for a religious justification after a decision the misguided person had already made. This is a heretical methodology which we have discussed in the past in more detail,[11] but here it should suffice to highlight the difference between a logical cause and an after-the-fact justification.

This is precisely why the academics mentioned above have said ideology is incidental not causative. If people who have decided to commit an act of political violence happen to be Christian, they will justify it using the language, imagery, metaphors and ethical framework they are familiar with—Christianity, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army or the other so-called Christian terrorist organisations you’ve never heard of.[12] If they happen to be Buddhist, such as the militias in Myanmar slaughtering the Rohingya,[13] then they will use Buddhist justifications. If Hindu terrorism, then Hindu justifications.[14] If secular, non-religious, terrorism such as neoliberal violence and destruction then likewise. And if they happen to be Muslims, then they will incidentally employ Islamic justifications. Although Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, rather an elected government, the following example about its use of force in retaliation to Israeli aggression profoundly highlights the distinction between cause and justification:

“For example, Hamas’ violence against Israeli civilians cannot be adequately explained by religious ideology. After all, religious arguments are used by Hamas to legitimise its ceasefires as much as they are used to legitimise its violence. Its decisions to adopt violence as a tactic at any point are determined by the organisation’s perceptions of the actions of the Israeli government in the context of a military occupation – just as for secular Palestinian groups.[15] Religious ideology provides a vocabulary and a cohering identity but politics provides the impetus.”[16]

The point is; political violence is caused by a whole host of issues, not least an analysis of the political situation, and automatically giving ideology a causative status because it happens to be there is bordering on superstition.

More powers to the state

Furthermore, if someone without an agenda were to ponder over the several quotes and throw-away comments ignored by those who formed the dangerously irresponsible aforementioned conclusion, they would find another inconvenient fact diligently ignored by those that shout the loudest about so-called “radicalisation”. None of the “radical preachers” had an Islamic upbringing—however extreme or not. They were either converts or those who saw the light later on in life. This is consistent with Mi5’s report in 2008—again, apparently ignored by policy makers and right-wing press—which said that “a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation”.[17]

It should be noted that neoconservative politicians are not only persistently ignoring this but are actively propagating the opposite, again. Despite there being no statistically significant evidence, David Cameron, Theresa May, Michael Gove and his replacement Nicky Morgan are all curiously maintaining the myth that Muslims are being radicalised by their parents or in their schools, universities, mosques and madrassas. This pretext has been conveniently used to introduce draconian measures that would even impress Big Brother. From legislation on spying on citizens, that was recently declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),[18] to banning certain speeches, debates, books and even the movement of some people, it has received widespread criticism by people who care about free speech and civil liberties.[19]

The impressive irony is that the unfortunate film in question displayed the poor police standing around with their hands in their pockets, powerless to do anything to stop the anti-social behaviour of the “hate preachers” spreading their “radical Islām”; whilst the last few years have seen an unprecedented empowerment of the state arbitrarily restricting the movement and activities of citizens not found guilty of any crime, along with civilian teachers, doctors, nurses and even child-minders effectively being enlisted as unpaid spies.

Counterproductive

Perhaps the most embarrassing blunder for those who perpetuate the myth that non-violent radical views cause political violence, and then subsequently seek to silence those views, is that precisely this is one of the empirically-determined factors in ones decision to turn to violence. As Professor Kudnani explains,

“The best way of preventing terrorist violence is to widen the range of opinions that can be freely expressed, not restrict it.”[20]

History has shown us time and again that it is when people with radical political views feel they can no longer express themselves, without fear of suffering state force, that they turn towards violence. Furthermore, the disastrous policies some right-wing policy makers are pursuing, to ‘fix’ the ideology of the Muslims they deem to be ‘extreme’, is far more likely to make things worse. This directly fuels the suspect community mentality and feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement ISIS recruiters actually look for, along with the far-right violence and conspiracies against Muslims.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose heretical interpretations of Islām, but the mythical correlation to terrorism is not one of them. Surely it is not beyond ones wit to oppose misinterpretations of Islām without endorsing poisonous stereotypes and false narratives about violence. The cure to bad speech is more speech, not less—that is why the group shown in the documentary have haemorrhaged over the last two decades and almost disappeared (or would have completely were it not for the constant publicity and useful sound bites they provide some right-wing ideologists).

This is because Muslim scholars and speakers have refuted their theological basis and as a result they are now largely the preserve of the dispossessed and mentally unwell. However as the Prime Minister’s speeches and press releases have shown, it is precisely those mainstream scholars, speakers and activists that are being smeared as “hate preachers” and “extremists” in an attempt to restrict their movement and speech. At the same time, those who actually call for violence and openly support ISIS are curiously given a much longer leash and access to mainstream media, perpetuating the impression of this mythical ‘problem of radicalisation’.

I would still like to give the producers of the programme the benefit of the doubt and presume that they were unaware of the rich literature surrounding evidence-based studies of terrorism. Perhaps, by following 3 Muslims out of 3,000,000, over a year or so, they intended to absolve the majority of the actions of the few, instead of pushing the out-dated, fictitious view of there being a statistically significant correlation between non-violent extremism and terrorism. Whatever the case, it is important we all try our best to dispel the darkness of bigotry and myth with the light of knowledge and facts.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/special/jihadi-john-unmasked-asim-qureshi-on-mohammed-emwazi-channel-4-news/feed/016984Owen Jones BBC Radio 5 Live Interview on Cathy Newmanhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/owen-jones-bbc-radio-5-live-interview-on-cathy-newman/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/owen-jones-bbc-radio-5-live-interview-on-cathy-newman/#respondFri, 13 Feb 2015 15:26:23 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=16736 An excellent 5 minute interview on BBC Radio 5 with Owen Jones about Channel 4’s Cathy Newman, who finally made the apology we and many other organisations and activists pressured her to make (see ”The Woman who cried Wolf” http://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-woman-who-cried-wolf/). Unfortunately she didn’t admit to lying in her use of the word ‘Ushered’ however ...

An excellent 5 minute interview on BBC Radio 5 with Owen Jones about Channel 4’s Cathy Newman, who finally made the apology we and many other organisations and activists pressured her to make (see ”The Woman who cried Wolf” http://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-woman-who-cried-wolf/). Unfortunately she didn’t admit to lying in her use of the word ‘Ushered’ however we have nevertheless still achieved a very positive result, i.e her pubic apology, Channel 4’s apology to the mosque (see below) and Cathy being told by her management not to use twitter for 6 months. We congratulate the keyboard army activists for rising up the the task and defending us all (see http://www.islam21c.com/politics/rise-of-the-keyboard-army/) in a victory against the Media’s Islamophobic machine, Alhamdulillah. Moments like these should act as a means of encouragement and hope and let us never forget that all victories belong to Allah who grants them to who he wills.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/owen-jones-bbc-radio-5-live-interview-on-cathy-newman/feed/016736The Woman who cried wolfhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-woman-who-cried-wolf/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/the-woman-who-cried-wolf/#commentsSat, 07 Feb 2015 21:00:10 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=16657Cathy Newman is slammed on social media as #FictionOn4 trends Pictures speak volumes. In Cathy Newman’s case, images from a mosque CCTV camera also spoke volumes, they exposed her as a liar, writes Dilly Hussain. The senior Channel 4 reporter’s claims that she was “ushered out of the door” when visiting a London mosque last ...

Pictures speak volumes. In Cathy Newman’s case, images from a mosque CCTV camera also spoke volumes, they exposed her as a liar, writes Dilly Hussain.

The senior Channel 4 reporter’s claims that she was “ushered out of the door” when visiting a London mosque last week, were disproven when the Huffington Post [1] obtained security footage showing Newman exiting the premises on her own.

Newman’s subsequent tweets on the day describing her version of events caused uproar on social media, which resulted in harsh criticism of the South London Islamic Centre in Streatham, and the Muslim community in general. Her tweets were picked up by the Daily Mail [2], Guardian [3], Independent [4] amongst other media outlets, who amid the Islamophobic diatribe taking place on social media, decided to crucify the Muslim community based on Newman’s fabrications.

An example of this was LBC Radio’s tabloid presenter, Nick Ferrari [5], who dedicated a significant part of his show to batter the Muslim community based on Newman’s tweets, until he was put in his place by a Jewish woman who pulled him up on his bigotry. And of course, you had the usual government approved Muslim opportunists who tried to milk the situation to advance their own political ambitions in parroting Newman’s unsubstantiated claims that women being prevented from entering mosques are a common practice. But this is not surprising. Though Newman is not a seasoned Islamophobe like the BBC’s John Ware [6], The Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan [7] or Daily Mail’s Richard Little John [8], ‘Muslim bashing’ be it physical, verbal or in writing, has become a fashionable method for a quick PR boost for many journalists. It’s the ‘in thing’ at the moment, and has been since 7/7 and post-Woolwich.

The CCTV footage revealed that Newman was mistakenly directed to the wrong mosque, where upon entering, she exchanged a few words with a worshiper that can’t have amounted to longer than 15 seconds, before she left the premises on her own without a man “ushering her through the door” or “onto the streets”.

When this whole fiasco kicked off, South London Islamic Centre [9] made it clear from the onset that all of this was a misunderstanding due to Newman visiting the wrong mosque – but this was taken with a pinch of salt and totally disregarded by the press. So why should the British public and media accept Newman’s justifications of her irresponsible tweets as a mere “misunderstanding”? It’s easy to make a half-hearted ‘apology’ once the damage is done. It then begs the question, why did Newman blatantly lie knowing that it would fan anti-Muslim hatred online, which led to the mosque receiving violent threats and abuse online? Perhaps only Cathy’s invisible usher knows, but she needs to swallow her pride and do the following unless she wants to be haunted by this embarrassing episode for the rest of her career:

Make a public apology for lying against the South London Islamic Centre.

Make a public apology to the Muslim community for fanning Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.

Explain exactly why she lied.

Publicly admit that her tweets resulted in anti-Muslim hatred online and violent threats against the mosque.

It really is that simple. Newman can redeem herself in a single tweet: ‘I apologise to South London Islamic Centre and the Muslim community for lying, which fuelled anti-Muslim hatred online and Islamophobia.’ (135 characters) In return Newman could:

Still be considered a reputable journalist who like all human beings made a mistake, as opposed to a politically driven Islamophobe.

Muslims will stop calling for her to get sacked, and inundating C4 with complaints.

The relentless trolling and memes of her being escorted by a red stickman and American R’n’B singer Usher will stop.

After making contact with Newman, I asked her whether she acknowledged that her tweets had fuelled anti-Muslim hatred online and threats of violence against the mosque – if so, will she apologise for this? If not, what exactly has she apologised for? Was she merely apologising for getting caught? I am yet to hear back from her. Whatever her reasons may be, in reality, if it wasn’t for the CCTV footage, Newman would have got away with her lies which would’ve tarnished the South London Islamic Centre’s reputation, and been a continuous source of ammunition against the Muslim community.

It is also important to note, that on Newman’s Twitter account, she does not state the usual disclaimer, “all views are my own and not that of my employers”, but makes it crystal clear that she is an employee of C4. On the news channel’s website, it states under its social media guidelines for staff: “Behaviour that is inappropriate at work is usually not appropriate on the internet. On Channel 4 designated sites and sites where you identify yourself as a person working on C4 output, avoid abusive or aggressive behaviour and respond to others in a professional manner”, and “If there is a risk that the opinions published could be viewed as those of Channel 4, it is usually appropriate to post a disclaimer e.g. “These comments are my personal views and opinions, not the views or opinions of Channel 4”.” [10] Taking the aforementioned into consideration, it’s clear that Newman’s actions have brought the profession of journalism and C4 into disrepute.

You can file a complaint to Channel 4 via the details provided below, as well as Cathy’s personal work email and that of her agent.